Un bilan de 20 ans de certification des systèmes de management de la qualité : les apports perçus de la certification ISO 9000 par les managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La certification ISO 9000 de systèmes de management de la qualité vient de fêter ses 20 ans d’existence. Cet anniversaire marque la nécessité pour la communauté des qualiticiens de rendre compte des apports réels de la certification au sein des organisations. Les résultats des études académiques, synthétisés dans cet article, sont loin d’être consensuels. Aussi, devant ce manque de lisibilité des résultats et prenant en compte l’importance des représentations des dirigeants sur ce qui influence l’entreprise et sa performance, l’article présente une étude portant sur la perception par les managers des apports de la certification à leur entreprise. Cet article permet ainsi de dresser un bilan des impacts des systèmes de management de la qualité et de leur certification, d’en comprendre les enjeux et d’effectuer une mise en perspective à l’heure de la nouvelle édition de ces normes au niveau international.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".